Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • TJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Christa on Must Law Practice and Scholarship be Exciting?

    • AYY on Privacy and Tattletales

    • Lsat Prep on Improving the US News Rankings: A Wish List

    • Lsat Prep on Fantasy Law School League

    • Legal Fact Finder on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Observer on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Mike Rich on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • anon on Privacy and Tattletales

    • orly lobel on At CELS, Hoping to Blog

    • harry brooks on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Michael H Schneider on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

  •  

    Site Meter

Law Review Submissions: March “Window” and War Stories

posted by Dave Hoffman

It’s my strong sense that most law reviews are very much in gear at the moment, and that some have even finished their Spring season. (Based in part on this, and part on personal experience.) I figured I’d create a thread for journals that just started reading and are hoping for submissions, or even those that haven’t opened yet. Tell us all about it! Also, based on some inquiries, is anyone particularly looking for book reviews or essays to fill an odd cranny here or there?

Also, feel free to use the thread as a place to write about attempts to reject rejections, wheedle acceptances, or otherwise share in the madness that is the 2009 law review tournament. ™


 March 8, 2009 at 9:50 pm   Posted in: Law School (Law Reviews)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (13)

  1. [deleted] - March 9, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    [I deleted an off-topic comment which said, essentially, that we ought to focus more on the job market for our students. I'll put up a separate post on that topic shortly. This particular thread is reserved for discussion of article submission this spring. -dh]

  2. newlawprof - March 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Right now I’m trying to place an essay which is about 19 (law review) pages in length. As a relatively new prof, I’ve done well placing several full-length articles but I have absolutely no experience placing essays. Although quite a few journals **say** that they accept them, I’ve heard that this might not be true in practice. I’d welcome any thoughts from editors or from profs with essay placement strategies.

  3. former AE - March 10, 2009 at 2:35 am

    newlawprof,

    My (top 10-20) journal last cycle tended to like the idea of an essay leading off each issue, BUT we tended to be more concerned with name recognition than with full length articles.

    There was no hard and fast rule on this, mind you. But realistically, we would jump to publish a good essay by someone like Balkin, Amar, Levinson, Tonry, or Nussbaum. Someone reasonably well established (Oman? Leib? Somin?–however you want to define this) may have had a chance, but we’d have needed to love the essay… and I don’t think we saw many essays from people in that tier. A truly “new” prof, probably not, although we did publish full articles we were very happy with by professors falling into that group.

    As for advice on placing yours, I’d actually wait. Later this spring, or even in September, journals will like the idea of squeezing in a few short pieces. Or at least we did–as the number of remaining committable pages grows short, the more the value of a short piece grows (would you rather have a 25 page essay and a 50 page article, or just a 75 page article? if you like all 3 equally, the former is clearly preferable).

  4. jd - March 10, 2009 at 8:06 am

    Former AE, you’re referring to the Minnesota Law Review, right?

  5. femalelawprof - March 10, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Former AE,

    I am deeply troubled by your claim that “reasonably well established” newer law profs are all bloggers. It’s great that you evidently read law blogs, but please keep in mind that **male** legal scholars are FAR more likely to contribute to blogs. There are plenty of well-established newer female scholars with whom you will be unfamiliar, despite their increasing prominence among legal scholars, if you’re equating scholarly influence with blogging. This is all very dismaying to read, and just deepens my lack of confidence in student-edited law journals.

  6. former AE - March 10, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    femalelawprof,

    Those names sprung to mind and also seemed most apt because we are, after all, discussing this on a law blog. Let’s assume that I had named Metzger, Hoeffel, and Tetlow instead — it doesn’t make a difference, because if a journal is weighing scholarly prominence, it’s going to check the authors’ publication records or CVs rather than rely on whose names are in the blogosphere.

    (This is not to defend student-run journals generally. The flaws in the system are well documented — but no one seems to want to turn down free student labor.)

  7. Another New Prof - March 11, 2009 at 10:11 am

    I have an offer from a 20-25 journal. I’ve requested expedited review from the 1-20 set. A bunch have sent me rejection emails. The others have not. Should I request a deadline extension from the journal that made me the offer, to give the other journals more time to complete review of my manuscript? Or should I just assume that their silence is a bad sign and, therefore, I should just go with what I have? Any advice would be appreciated!

  8. Not So New Prof - March 11, 2009 at 10:36 am

    Another New Prof,

    In my experience, silence is the kiss of death. Expeditee law reviews generally fall into three categories: (1) take you seriously and get back to you by your deadline (usually to ding your article, but c’est la vie); (2) tell you that they will get back to you by your deadline and don’t; or (3) utterly ignore you. I have often expedited, sometimes successfully, but I have never reached my deadline, accepted my best offer, and then heard back later from a better law review wanting to publish the article.

    Sadly, many editorial boards seem to think that simply ignoring expedite requests is the easiest way to make them go away. To illustrate: this spring I got an acceptance from a Top 20-25 journal, expedited to about 13 higher ranked journals (having already been dinged at the others), got another offer from a similarly ranked journal in the interim, got an offer from a Top 10-15 journal off the expedite, got dinged by about 4 or 5 of the 13 expedites, got a nible of interest and then a ding from a Top 5 journal, was promised an answer from one journal that never got back to me, and didn’t hear anything from the rest. This is a very typical pattern in my experience.

    Having been on law review and having served as my school’s law review advisor, I know that they get swamped with expedite requests. However, as I have preached to my own law review, it isn’t such a burden to send a polite ding or “we won’t be able to review the article before your deadline” e-mail, even if it is to hundreds of expeditors. It’s a small courtesy that I always appreciate when I expedite.

    Good luck with your article!

  9. getting bearings - March 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Where can I get basic strategy information on this stuff? That is, when are these “windows” generally, what are they, and so forth. I’m in a cognate field, and I generally submit to peer-reviewed journals, which accept stuff at any time, and time of acceptance does not bear upon likelihood of acceptance. However, I have a work in progress more suited to a law review, and I’m gathering that I need to strategize about timing in addition to where I submit and so forth. Help, please!

  10. fmreic - March 12, 2009 at 8:18 am

    getting bearings,

    The two windows are Spring (roughly mid/late February to the end of classes in April) and Fall (roughly mid-August to the end of September). To get placed in a law review, you really ought to submit during one of those windows.

  11. anon - March 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    Here’s a factoid: it’s my sense that the top 10 journals have finally put systems in place that can deal with the increased volume generated by BePress. Five years ago, when Expresso started, I’d routinely never get answers from any of those journals, even post expedite. Now, I’ve gotten several rejections, before the expedite went to them, and in a pretty timely fashion. This is a major improvement.

    Of course, NYU and Texas are still infamously bad at communicating with authors, but that’s nothing new. But everyone else is making real progress!

  12. Shamer - March 13, 2009 at 9:07 am

    On the one hand, NYU really should be shamed in public and often. It is just so damn inconsiderate. Every other journal seems to manage to find the three seconds it takes to scan the first page of your article and reject it.

    Then again, maybe there is something respectful in their behavior, after all: at least they don’t pretend to have actually given your article a second’s thought.

  13. oldprof - March 14, 2009 at 6:56 am

    Texas just shifted to electronic Expresso submission. Whether that now means they will get back to authors with dings is another issue entirely.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress